MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095794835 · doi:10.4102/jsava.v72i2.624

Report of isolations of unusual lyssaviruses (rabies and Mokola virus) identified retrospectively from Zimbabwe : short communication

2001· article· en· W2095794835 on OpenAlexaff
John Bingham, S. Javangwe, Claude Sabeta, A. I. Wandeler, Louis H. Nel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the South African Veterinary Association · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRabiesLyssavirusVirologyMongooseRabies virusBiologyMononegaviralesVirusParamyxoviridaeRhabdoviridaeZoologyViral disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rabies isolates that had been stored between 1983 and 1997 were examined with a panel of anti-lyssavirus nucleocapsid monoclonal antibodies. Out of 56 isolates from cats and various wild carnivore species, 1 isolate of Mokola virus and 5 other non-typical rabies viruses were identified. The Mokola virus isolate was diagnosed as rabies in 1993 from a cat. Genetic analysis of this isolate suggests that it falls in a distinct subgroup of the Mokola virus genotype. The 5 non-typical rabies viruses were isolated from honey badgers (Mellivora capensis), African civets (Civettictis civetta) and an unidentified mongoose (Herpestidae). These isolates are representatives of rarely-reported wildlife-associated strains of rabies, probably maintained by the slender mongoose (Galerella sanguinea). These findings indicate that both Mokola virus and the mongoose-associated variant may be more common in Zimbabwe than is apparent from routine surveillance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the South African Veterinary AssociationSame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207